Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I was particularly impressed by what Senator Byrne said just now. However, the logic of what he said should cause him to support the amendment. We will agree to disagree.

The Minister made several points about tribunals of inquiry. I do not think anyone would disagree with what he said. In my previous existence as an opinion columnist I questioned aspects of how tribunals of inquiry worked. I do not think I heard the Minister make the same criticism of commissions of inquiry. I do not want to invoke the concept of straw men, but we can sometimes have false dichotomies. Does the Minister have the same problem with the way commissions of inquiry have been operating? It seems to me they have been a vast improvement. The Cloyne report, for example, was done in a relatively short space of time and on a very sensitive issue. The commission was headed by a person with the requisite training. The appropriate role for these Houses is to discuss what a good inquiry such as that comes up with and to see what policy or legislative measures should follow it.

The difference between a judge and a politician is that judges, generally, do not care whether they are popular or not. I remember, at a prominent State funeral, a certain judge was seen in the back of his State car. It was remarked that no Minister would do that. Ministers make sure they are seen in the front of their cars.